We will be releasing an update of Kivio early next week that also includes the source. We have been getting a lot of requests for packages for systems that we just don't have access to. We will be creating RPM's for RH 6.2 and 7.0 as well as a DEB by using Alien (DEB packagers are welcome). We will also supply tarballs for Slackware 7.1. If you want to see support for other environments, then please write to us at support@thekompany.com and let us know so we can make them available to everyone. Please note that support for unofficial packages is left up to the packager.

I will be curious if all the people that insisted we open the source understand that open or free is meant as in speech, not as in beer. I think a lot of people have started to think they are entitled to whatever they want at no cost, and not even RMS thinks that is true.

I plan to open source many of our offerings, and the reaction from some members of the community demanding that we give them the source was rather disturbing. I obviously can't support a company that produces quality products without making money somehow. I hope that that the community will support us as we are supporting them.

I think another issue that got community members riled specifically with kivia was that there was no mention of kivio's licensing terms anywhere on its page. You were giving away a free binary of the package, but you didn't mention if it was eventually intended to be open sourced or not.

I think it "frightens and confuses" many free (as in speech) software advocates when you give away binaries of a linux app for free, since you're not benefitting on either end. Knowing licensing terms, open or not, for the software they use is important to many community members. I think many "insisted" (as you say) that you open the source because, to them, it makes no sense to give away a linux app without freeing its source.

If, instead of just giving away the binary, you had advertised it as a free demo of the upcoming, closed-source full version (available for a reasonable fee), you wouldn't have had such an outcry. Likewise, if you had claimed that you were releasing this as a free binary, with the intent of releasing the source in the near future after internal issues had been cleared, most would have waited with no complaint. No claims to either (or any) licensing scenario only caused frustration.

Personally, I'm all for you setting aside as many as your products as you want to sell as closed-source binaries. I'd just prefer to know which licensing strategy you're taking with an app up front. The kivio pages offered no such information (and still doesn't, at least not that I can find on the site).

Valid points. We originally had a GPL notice up on the web page, but we weren't sure if that's what we wanted, so we pulled it down. Unfortunatly we don't have as many employees as we would like to have to handle everything and we tend to focus on the programming. This was probably a good learning experience, and things should go smoother in the future.

We are updating the web pages over the next couple of days to coincide with the next release, there will be a short tutorial up as well. Thank you for your input.

Shawn -- if there's one thing the KDE world should have learned by now, it's that ambiguities and questions about licensing create PR nightmares that will affect mindshare for years to come.

I respect that you guys are more interested in coding than in marketing and licenses. I'm much more impressed by that than by companies that are more interested in pandering to 19 year old loudmouths on Slashdot than in making software. But I'd strongly urge you to decide what policy you want to make and work out the details before you release, maybe getting Bruce Perens or RMS to sign off on your plan, instead of setting off yet another flamefest.

I know you have good intentions. But that didn't help the KDE project when things got ugly and it won't help you.

Nobody "insisted" that you open the source. I remember some people asked you for licensing
clarifications.

BTW, you have the right to keep your source private if you choose. If you release a well-supported, useful app for Linux for which there is no free alternative, people will pay for it. You should not feel pressured to open up the source as long as you are not in violation of any licenses.

You didn't see the private emails I got :), some people got very rude and insistant, it's a little disheartening and it almost made me change my mind and keep it closed, but all the good words from the other people kept us going.